Skip to main content

About your Search

20121201
20121231
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 93 (some duplicates have been removed)
fong? >> here. >> commission vice president wu? >> here. >> commissioner antonini is here, but, commissioner borden? >> here. >> commissioner hillis? >> here. >> commissioner moore? >> here. >> and commissioner sugaya? >> here. >> commissioners, first on your item items proposed for continuance. item 1, case no. 2012.1381t, inclusionary housing updates, it is proposed for continuance december 30 13th, 2012. item 2, 2012.1306tz, review of two ordinances (planning code text amendment and zoning map amendment) that would rezone parcels in the upper market ncd to the upper market nct, planning code and zoning map amendments, proposed for continuance to february 21st, 2013. item 3, case no. 2012.1168c, 793 south van ness avenue, request for conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to january 24th, 2013. items 4a, b and c for case numbers 2009.0 724 d, 2012.0 888 d, and 2009.0 724 v at 2833 through 2835 fillmore street, mandatory discretionary reviews and variance have been withdrawn. further on your -- under your regular calendar, commissioners, item 15, case no. 20
commissioners have to say. >> president fong: commissioner antonini svttledz i know a couple -- >> commissionecouple -- >> commissioner antonini: a couple of speakers spoke about soundness during the construction process. this is an issue that has to do with department of building inspection. the project sponsor, in this sort of building, is responsible to make sure the shoring is adequate, that no damage is done to any of the adjacent properties. and that is not really an issue that we have control over here. it's something that needs to be taken up with during the permitting process. and it routinely is. and that would be mandatory that shoring be adequate and there be no adverse effects on adjacent properties from the excavation or anything else that's being done. in regards to the project itself, i think it's a very well-done. the house is extremely contextural, if you look at the renderings of the new building it fits in beautifully with the homes on the street, that unfortunately doesn't happen enough, and i think it's an example what can be done architecturally to make a home look like
not going to happen. i don't consider that to be an extraordinary circumstance. >> commissioner antonini? >> i would agree with commissioner sugaya. i know in "rear window," there this was a lot of that activity in that building being a hitchcock movie. this is different, because the people on the decks would have to turn, instead of looking at the garden and green space, actually look back to their east and to the east windows and again, we're in a city that people are always going to have windows. i don't see any other impacts. the dr request's home is the one that goes furthest into the open space as far as this project is concerned. so i don't see anything unusual or extraordinary in this project. >> commissioner moore? >> move to approve. >> second. >> i'm sorry, the proper wording is not take dr and approve >> commissioners on that motion to not take dr and approve the project as proposed. (roll call ) so moved commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0. and puts you on your final item on your calendar, public comment -- have i have no speaker cards. >> is there
that we have right now. last week, commissioner antonini had stated when you add something, you want to take it back. i thought that was a well-spoken remark and that should be applied to this particular new appraisal. also i know that we talked about the building of this home but i also think that we're concerned about the bottom of the hill. we have a foundation that right adjacent to the -- if that's demolished i think there should be some consideration to the demolishment and soundness of the concrete next to our home. thank you for listening to my concerns. >> president fong: thank you. next speaker please. >> mr. president and commissioners, my name is jill artolla, and i side at 4008, my husband and i are native san franciscans and have owned our home for more than 30 years. we look forward to living there for a long time as well. i do not recognize many of the people that stood as our neighbors either. i am outside, gardening very often. we are concerned about the loss of light and view of open space after this large home is built. we would like to encourage you to reduce its
: is there any public comment on item 12 for continuance. >> commissioner antonini: move to continue. >> the clerk: commission antonini, aye, borden, aye, hillis, aye, moore, aye, wu, aye. 7-0. consenticle considered to be retoon by the planning commission and will be acted on by a single roll call vote. there will be no discussion unless the public requests in which case it will be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. you have two items commissioners, item 2 case 2012.05952(c) and item 3, 2012.6069(e) request for qunel use authorization. note that on november 29 following public testimony the commission closed the public hearing and adopted attempt to improve with -- with clear gazing and continue the item to today's date. >> president fong: is there any public comment on the two items on the consent calendar? seeing none, commissioner antonini. >> commissioner antonini: move to approve. >> second. >> the clerk: on that motion, commissioner antonini, aye, commissioner borden, aye, hillis, wu, aye, fong, aye. so moved that p
comment portion is closed. commissioner antonini? >> thank you. well, it's an interesting project. and i do want to compliment -- i think the architect is here, if i am not mistaken. from the rendering it looks like not only has the penthouse been added, but the facade is being much improved over what was there in 1966, which was probably not the top of the architectural times. but it is, with the arches and some of the way that the windows are treated with french windows going in and some nice improvements to the facade of the building. but that is not what we're here for, because we're talking more about the impacts that this will have on adjacent properties. and as has been mentioned, two things are not protected, property line windows and views, but we always try to do whatever we can to protect those. we have the matching light wells, which is one way we do it and that will take care of most of the essential windows. and i understand that two property line windows will be recovered, but all the rest of them will not be covered. so i think that is probably done pretty well in that
. >> commissioner antonini. >> i think aside from the parking which i spoke to, the rest of the legislation is well written and it's well done. but i won't be able to support it based upon that part of it. >> commissioners, on the motion to adopt a resolution recommending with modifications as proposed by staff, commissioner antonini? >> no. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes 6 to 1. >> the commission is going to take a short break and we will come back. >>please stand by; meeting in recess like to welcome everybody back to san francisco's planning commission hearing for november 29, 2012. i'd like to remind members investment audience to turn off any mobile devices that may sound off during the proceedings. commissioner, we left off under your regular calendar for the benefit of the public item 15 has been continued which places you under item 16, case no. 2003.0527u, 1000 16th street (dagge
carefully listen to. >> commissioner antonini, you made a motion, a loose motion at that. is there a second? >> i'll try to capture it if i can. >> okay. commissioner wu will second. so, the motion, if i can try to capture it, is to adopt a resolution recommending approval to the board of supervisors with a strong request to engage -- >> no, no, no. >> let me restate it if i can, mr. ionin. we are asking the supervisor to engage the public for additional input and then create a third draft that takes into consideration their input as well as those comments of ours with specific reference to the trigger date and the period of time during which the appeals could occur. >> okay. this is a completely different motion. it was in case the supervisor chooses to move forward. so, we're disregarding the fact that the supervisor can move forward on the legislation and we're going to draft a new resolution simply requesting -- >> it's understood that if he decides to move forward without taking into consideration, that's his province because it's an administrative action. >> okay, my apologies. i misu
? okay. seeing none, the public comment portion is closed. commissioner antonini? >> i have a question, ms. hayward, first, for the modifications. if i'm reading this right, the legislation calls for an initial filing by all post secondary institutions that provide student housing with an inventory of all their existing housing on and off campus. is that correct? >> [speaker not understood], yes. the legislation requires an annual report to be filed by all institutions, yes, or people who control student hosing. >> right. but then i thought i heard with your modification would be the annual report would not be as extensive as it was. they'd only have to file a paper saying that there were no changes. is that what you're proposing? >> just to clarify, the department's recommendation is slightly different from what [speaker not understood] just explained. the department's recommendation is that there be an initial report provided by all institutionses and operatorses of student housing. subsequent to that initial report, our recommendation is that a report -- a report only be filed when
, the public comment portion is closed. commissioner antonini. >> thank you. i'm very much in favor of this proposal and i also live in the neighborhood in west side -- west lakeside village. i'm sorry, west portal frequently. and there are a lot of vacancies. and this particular space is tiny. its frontage is 11-1/2 feet. and, so, it's a very hard thing to fill. and we are losing businesses partly because of what's happening online and i hope that doesn't continue because, you know, i don't shop online and i discourage other people from doing it because it just knocks out jobs for people in retail places. but until we have that turn around, there is going to be this problem with trying to get retail to be vital and there's lots of other spaces. the other thing that impresses me, they're taking 545 feet of their space and turning it into a community room. and the argument that the merchants will go back to meeting and squat and gobble and rebuilt, which will be quite a while. begs a question. a lot of meetings you have, you don't necessarily want to include food and drink also. i go
, public comment is closed >>> commissioner antonini. >> thank you, i had a couple of questions on the memo. and i am led to believe when i first saw this, i thought it was the entire program. but this is only a memo dealing with the resale of existing ownership units and then dealing with the other entities here. for example, as i recall unless it's changed, your for-sale ownership units are 100 ami and it can be up to 120 in some instances, but i believe it's always been at 100 ami has been the price for-sale units. and then the rental units at 60 ami? >> that is correct, but there has been adjustment. there are two ami tables that we use in san francisco. there is a tri-county, or three county ami table. at one point the board of supervisors directed us to use a san francisco-specific table and given the relative wealth of our adjacent counties to the south and north, san francisco's ami is about 10% lower than the tri-county ami. so san francisco -- 100% ami is equivalent to 90% in san francisco and that is called out here. similarly on the rental side, it coordinates to
to commissioners. commissioner antonini? >> thank you. i guess the first issue which was raised on a number of occasions is why this is before us? maybe mr. sanchez could tell us the reason why this new project is before us. >> thank you. so first, this is just an informational item. this is not an action item and there is not a project before you to approve or disprove, but the planning code states no application proposing an amendment, conditional use or variance, the same or substantially the same as that which was disapproved shall be resnit smieed or reconsidered by the planning commission or zoning administrator within a period of one year of effective action upon the earlier application this. is where the one-year bar has been raised and the planning code says you cannot submit the same or substantially the same project. it's a planning code provision and i reviewed the plans submitted and found it's not substantially the same, so it can come before you within the year. it's fully within your discretion when you have the hearing on that item and i don't know when that date would
depend. >> so those projects that we're contemplating? great. commissioner antonini, i would move to adopt? >> second. >> commissioner antonini? >> yes, as you know, there is a statewide requirement to provide housing for all income levels and in particular county or cities. but it does not necessarily have to be inclusionary housing. i mean, you can use other methods of doing it. from what i understand, and maybe you could comment on other jurisdictions within the bay area? what do they do? if they use inclusionary, what sort of percentages of ami are they using for their rental and housing or ownership units? are they similar to ours? are they lower percentages? well, there is an ami level and there is also the 15% on-site and 20% offsite? >> i'm afraid i can't comment on that. i am not familiar with inclusionary programs in other jurisdictions. >> that is a problem for me, because when i am asked to vote on this, i have to know what other places are doing and i think you are doing a good job, but i don't think i can support it at that point, because i really don't have a
. >> commissioner antonini? >> excuse me, commissioner wu i wanted to clarify that the zone the rm-1 zoning would not allow any additional units on this property. it's at its max mulch maximum right now. >> commissioner antonini. >> to be necessary and desire, you don't have to necessarily add another unit. i have seen additions to single-family homes and multi-dwelling units that make it nice to live. i would like to make a motion to approve with the following conditions, dropping the floor to floor height to 13' and take a 1.5 foot off of there and go with flat solar panels. i think the total floor to floor was 14.5, am i not wrong on that? >> i would just like an interpretation of this section. >> excuse me, that is okay. but the motion would be to take a foot and a half off and make flat solar panels and you have a nice, high interior space. >> commissioner sugaya, you are looking at interior height, 13. >> section you have floor to floor heights, as well as the floor dimensions. and it goes 8.1 8.1, 10 and then 13 feet is the way mine is dimensioned. >> 14 is from top of the finished
. >> second. >> commissioner antonini. >> i have some questions on the legislation. i guess the first one has to do with the changes from parking. now, we're talking about residential parking or commercial parking? * >> i believe it changes the -- all to maximum parking rather than minimum parking in the new ncd. >> yeah, but it depends which it is and what the maximums are. >> they're the standard found in section 151. so, all the other districts that have had this done to them have maximum parking controls. i'm sorry, i don't have that section of the code in front of me for the parking, though. >> seems to me it would be related more to the commercial establishments that front divisadero street as opposed to somebody's residential building that might be built new. but that's important to know. well, while you're looking at that, i'll raise my other question. in terms of second and third floor use, it specified philanthropic and administrative, but it didn't mention just general office. why wouldn't you be able to just have, you know, an insurance agency upstairs or something like that? i do
portion is closed. opening up to commissioners. commissioner antonini. >> i think this is an excellent project for a lot of reasons that have already been brought up. pointed out the siting in such a way to allow access to oscar park, allow light and air into a whole area of the city. i think that's extremely well done. there was one comment made by a commenter that they don't see the cumulative appearance, but architect has done a very good job of our materials put on the screen and showing what the skyline would look like with all the buildings in place that are those that we know of are either already entitled or are planned to be entitled in the future. and i think that answers a lot of the questions about what the cumulative effect of all the buildings in the area will be. so, i think this is a wonderful project and there will probably be in other commissioners with some comments, but i'm happy to move approval for the 309 compliance, which i believe is what's before us. >> is that a motion? >> that is a motion. >> i'll second. >> commissioner sugaya. >> well, never mind. >> commi
would be. >> well, let me think about it. go ahead. >> commissioner antonini. >> thank you. so, commissioner sugaya, would you be interested in another hearing possibly? [laughter] >> let me put forth -- >> really. >> let me put forth what my idea would be and let's see if it has support. and parenthetically, there are some additions of things in this. i i understand the negative declarations now would have to be appealed to us first, which was not necessarily the case. so, there's more process added in some of these. i would move that we recommend to the supervisor support, but with these modifications. longer, but clear, clear appeal periods, not to exceed three months from whatever we determine to be the date of the first complete approval document. and what i mean by that is something that you can begin to build on. if you get a plumbing permit, if you get, you know, the very first permit that you're going to be building something that really doesn't give the public much of an input as to what you're going to build. but if you have something that has the plans together and
, the public comment portion is closed. commissioner antonini. >> thank you. as a west side resident, i drive through here frequently. when i'm coming across town, i think this is a very good project and it starts to help us to meet some of the housing demand in a very small way. and we are limited in the number of sites we have available, but i've talked to tim colin in the past about taking a trip. there are some, there are some opportunity sites and if you say you're losing your open space, all you have to do is look at the rendering across the street that shows a huge area on the other side of garden side where there is nothing built. and even if some additional structures were ever built there, you've got the whole area of twin peaks that is adjacent to twin peaks boulevard and garden side and other streets that are open space. and, so, i think this has been very well done. as was pointed out, there is a 19-foot wide space where the steps are and a fairly, more generous space than was the case with the other developments on the other side. and, so, i think that -- and it does provide som
the project as proposed. * >> commissioner antonini. >> i just wanted to ask one other question, maybe for ms. barkley, i guess, would probably be the best speaking for project sponsors. the other part of the picture was to take part of that deck and turn it into a skylight on the other section without moving the family room. would that have an adverse effect on your project? >>> first of all, we are talking about there are five, what they are basically talking about -- now we're talking about moving the privacy screen that they asked for in the five feet and there is a problem about how you support that going up when you're moving it into the middle of the deck instead of following basically the exterior because you're going to have to anchor that because it doesn't have any roof. and then in addition to that, in the front at the very end, actually, facing the backyard, we have created a -- to address the privacy concern, we have now created a fairly deep planter area. so, there are actually two railings in that area that run right about the property line is 30 inches, then going in three fe
element. commissioner antonini. >> in terms of open space, i mean, not going back to the distant past, but telegraph and russian hills were very densely built, but most people feel they're quite attractive and appropriate places to live and we were able to capture the top of telegraph hill as an open space. but the sides of the hills were pretty densely built and i'm not saying we should do that entirely on twin peaks, but, you know, i think where this opportunity presents itself to build a building which will be probably architecturally the best up there, i think that we should do it and i would support the project. >> commissioner sugaya. >> following the logic of building an open space, if there weren't a garden there now and it was just what is being characterized as this particular open space, we would be approving apartment projects up and down the [speaker not understood] steps. >> commissioners, there is a motion to not take dr and approve. commissioner sugaya. >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> [speaker not understood]. >> and commission president fong? >> so moved, c
antonini. >> thank you. actually, was able to go out there and see the site a little bit in the past, but i did have a question maybe for ms. barkley. i guess, i'm looking at the two plans next to each other. if i am correct, there are no changes that are being proposed by d-r requestor to the lower two floors. it's only the upper floor -- >> that's correct. >> and i guess everyone is agreed upon the light gray color and the translucent windows to, you know, minimize the amount of darkness on that area. and i think -- >>> that is already established. >> all i'm seeing here is the family room being moved to the sort of more to the center and taking up part of the open roof that would be to the east side if my direction is complete. and they're claiming this family room is larger in the version, the janet campbell version than the other version. i haven't quite been able to figure that out and they're putting a couple skylights in that area. >>> first of all, i think the first thing is that the owners wanted to live certain way and they have designed this building so that it accommodates not
comment portion is closed. opening it up to commissioners for questions, commissioner antonini? >> thank you. this is a very interesting proposal and i certainly can identify with it. i have a granddaughter who is looking for preschool in september and a few more on the way from what i understand. [ laughter ]. so it's an issue that affects all of us. there was some commentary about the other facilities that are available. and part of our packet includes a list of the various child-care facilities or preschools in the neighborhood or adjoining neighborhoods. but many of these are means of income tests. so people would not qualify if their income were higher than a certain level, or many of them closed at 2:30 and don't include a full days that one does. so i think there is no question that there is a need. and they would be principaled permitted at 15 or below and they are only going for five more children, which is why they are before us today. so i think there is a lot of potential for this. and i agree that i really like the university mound in the district. i know it very well ha
? seeing none, commissioner antonini? >> mr. cowan spoke precisely of what i brought up on a number of instances and that is why i wasn't supportive, because i wasn't really clear on levels. this level that could float in certain instances say for example you brought the ami to 120-140 percentile, but you have to produce a higher percentage because your subsidy is less. so therefore, you begin to address the middle-class, because you get a couple of city employees, particularly if they are in public safety, and they are way above the levels that would be allowed by this program. they good to try to buy something and part of the provision with prop c, particularly with public safety officials, but i think using that in general is a good system. because you can build a higher number because your subsidy is less if the income levels are higher and the prices are sold are. so i think that is very good way to approach this. i had a couple of questions on some of these things brought up. i understand the rate stabilization, but in fairness to the renter, but i didn't know that i guess b
antonini? >> along those lines i remember when the earlier project was denied, i was working with project sponsor and the neighbors as to a design with a floor less. fortunately that was coming forward the 11th hour and many commissioners said we wish we would have seen that weeks ago. so that reinforces the fact that we have something that we're moving forward on this project. along those lines on similar projects that are in the general vicinity, the commission worked very hard with a different developer on the project that is now almost completed at polk and pacific; which is going to be, i think, a very attractive project, that went through some modification and also at sutter and van ness, under construction and nearing complete completion. i remember commissioner moore in particular had a lot of input on the design changes and the massing that makes a stronger cornice at a particular floor and makes it more sympathetic to the historic buildings that run along van ness there. in terms of cornices, the other thing and this is just a subtlety, but i looked at the before-and-after and i
and i very much appreciate commissioner antonini's questions about the grass. i would agree with him that the drought resistant trees offer [speaker not understood] being in the drought or dry instead of those kind of trees which help us also with sun and wind and protection of the adjacent unit which is energy efficiency. the one thing i would like to put a question mark to is that light green area astroturf for dogs. where did that come from? it is astroturf, artificial grass for dogs. >> it will be something that will be easy to clean, permeable, but easy to clean. >> i haven't seen the stuff you're talking about. i'm not very happy about that being a feature of public open spaces, dogs, people or both of them. we should carefully look at that as nothing we really want to be associated with. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, [speaker not understood], could you refresh my memory when we looked at this originally in terms of development plan, there is a street in here. >> right. >> and could you -- it doesn't seem like on the face of it that that's necessary since the intersections's
you. >> thank you. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah, also, mr. guy, i think we have an errata sheet also. there was a mention of a shadow that does not exist with this project. has that already been incorporated in here? >> there is no errata sheet necessarily and there is nothing in the motion about that. it was just something in the executive summary that was boilerplate [speaker not understood]. that was a reference to shadows being cast. there are no shadows being cast in section 295 parks of the project. >> right, that's not in the motion. we don't need to correct something -- [multiple voices] >> thank you. >> commissioners, there is a motion and a second before you to approve with conditions as amended by staff. commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> and read into the record. commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden in >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong in >> congratulations aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously. zon
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 93 (some duplicates have been removed)